But that is not enough for Kerry or Pacts it seems. Here is a bit more about PACTS. and Much more here too. No friends of UK's drivers they.
‘Just because someone has been killed by a car doesn’t make it less of a death’ http://t.co/6bmzJSYyWgKerry is demanding drivers are jailed just because they have an accident it seems. She even wants the word accident not to be used, as all anti drivers do too so that more can be jailed for having a 'collision' and not an accident. The Guardian has now elevated her to that of an accident and road collision expert. Yet she clearly isn't aware that we already jail drivers for long sentences under existing law for careless or dangerous driving or for causing death when on the phone, texting or even when not driving As in this example
— PACTS (@PACTS) March 10, 2015
How dishonest and anti driver of The Guardian to paint a graphically emotive image at the start of the article, 'When he was found he had his hand curled up near his face in the position he had adopted to soothe himself since he was a baby' then end it: 'Who cannot be dismayed by this story?'.No; not from the way it is written.
Sorry Kerry, but how your son was when found has no bearing on the issue Yes leaving this lad to die was reprehensible and worthy of its own severe punishment but that is not evidence of bad driving or that the accident was the driver's fault; even if it probably was. We cannot jail people for an accident without evidence of the cause and The Guardian should know that and gently explained it to Kerry instead of exploiting her grief.
Kerry wants passengers in vehicles held liable for leaving a scene of an accident too. Well they already are, as the article acknowledges. They can be guilty of perverting the course of justice which carries a two year sentence. But then why not charge bus passengers or by-standers who walk off too if we are to create a specific offence of leaving a casualty unaided as Kerry seems to be asking?
The other two sad examples fall precisely into the same category. Bereaved becoming lawyers and experts yet motivated by grief, emotion and revenge because the available evidence wasn't good enough for them.
Then all becomes clear later in the piece. Now, feminists having changed the onus of evidence for rape, want exactly the same principles applied to road accidents.They want accident victims to be accorded the same victim-hood as for a deliberate crime or act. They refuse to acknowledge that to rape and to murder is a deliberate act, but road accidents are exactly that. Unintentional and from a very dangerous scenario that society must have to exist. What these anti drivers simply cant accept is, that without drivers all of us would die, and from a scenario where people are mixing and mingling with heavy, fast machines of infrastructure there will be death and injury. But Look at the perspective here. and See less proof used in jailing drivers than murderers.
Well the anti drivers are the same people who don't like anything industrial and essential for our survival. The loud, left leaning, green, anti people people. Susanna Rustin and The Guardian may well be part of that movement and because of that drivers must use their voices against people like The Guardian who will exploit human grief to achieve their ends.
Promoting this, PACTs just demonstrates that when it comes to road safety and drivers, it really isn't objective at all. MPs please note.
We cannot run road safety by exploiting grief and emotion; it's a cheap stunt.
But be warned. Here it is in black and white. Like rape victim law, they are looking for the same principles against drivers to be applied now.
Help us to prevent it.